"Nowadays, whether you love it or hate it, Page 3 just looks dated. There's something almost nostalgic about the fact that The Sun is still wheeling out these desperate not-even-logical-anyway arguments in defence of the indefensible."

And Gill writes that Mohan "missed the all important word 'was'- it was a British institution - and not a particularly good one at that."

"What our polling shows is that many people, far from viewing 'institutions' like Page 3 as harmless fun, in fact see Page 3 as an outdated 'institution' which is, frankly, a bit embarrassing and needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history."

The poll results are interesting because almost a third of the men who were surveyed said they would support a ban on Page 3.

Almost double the proportion of women (42%) said they would support a ban while 24% were opposed to it, and among both men and women, 41% of those aged 18-24 would back a ban.

Of course, banning is problematical for all sorts of reasons, not least the freedom of the press (and the freedom of the readers to "enjoy" them).

I certainly agree with Groskop and Gill that Page 3 is well past its sell-by date. However, as Gill implies, that isn't a substantive argument against the use of such pictures, which are clearly appreciated by a substantial audience.

Indeed, I read the poll somewhat differently from Gill. I am amazed that it reveal so much continuing support for Page 3. It is depressing.

What would be interesting is to conduct an independent poll of Sun and Daily Star readers in order to discover what they think about the pictures.